Features
Trump Raises Questions About Miriam Adelson’s Priorities and Sparks Debate Over Donor Influence on Politics
During a speech in the Knesset, Donald Trump unexpectedly pointed to the special role of Miriam Adelson in shaping U.S.–Israel relations. His remarks addressed not only the well-known philanthropist herself, but also a broader issue: how significant is the influence of private donors on a country’s foreign policy becoming? Society once again turns its attention to the boundaries of what is acceptable in the alliance between politics and big capital.
Who Is Miriam Adelson and Why She Receives So Much Attention
Dr. Miriam Adelson is a physician, scientist, and millionaire of Jewish origin, born in Israel and living in the United States for many years. She actively supports educational, medical, and cultural projects related to Jewish and Israeli identity, as well as programs aimed at combating drug addiction. Her foundation finances scholarships, memorials, and medical research.
Miriam Adelson is known for having continued her late husband’s political course after the death of Sheldon Adelson, a businessman and the founder of the casino company Las Vegas Sands, by maintaining strong support for the U.S. Republican Party. Over recent decades, the Adelson family has donated hundreds of millions of dollars to election campaigns, becoming one of the leading donors to the conservative wing of American politics. It is precisely the scale of her influence and her close contacts with the Trump administration that draw particular interest from experts and observers.
How Miriam and Sheldon Adelson Influenced U.S. Decisions on Israel
A series of cases is widely discussed in which funding from the Adelson family coincided with major political decisions made by the White House. Among the most prominent examples is the relocation of the U.S. embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem in 2018. According to reports by Reuters and The New York Times, this move was actively lobbied by Adelson and her circle, and the opening ceremony itself took place in the personal presence of the philanthropists.
In addition, Miriam Adelson has repeatedly been honored for her philanthropy and support of Israeli military organizations. In 2018, Trump awarded her the Presidential Medal of Freedom, one of the highest state honors in the United States. It is known that Adelson regularly visited the White House and maintained personal contact with the president on key issues.
The term “major donor” in this context refers to an individual or organization that contributes substantial sums to the campaigns of politicians or political parties. Lobbying is the activity of promoting the interests of private entities through lawful mechanisms of influence on those in power.
What Donald Trump Said and Why His Words Caused a Stir
During his speech, broadcast on Israeli and American channels, Trump stated: “Every president for decades said they would move the embassy to Jerusalem, but I got it done. Right, Miriam? Look, here’s Miriam—stand up, Miriam.”
Trump then spoke about how the Adelson couple frequently visited his office and actively participated in discussions on issues related to Israel. He added: “I once asked Miriam: which do you love more—Israel or the United States? She didn’t answer. Maybe it’s Israel.” These remarks became the subject of heated debate: can a donor with such priorities be considered capable of influencing U.S. foreign policy?
The context of the speech intensified the overall atmosphere—on the eve of the address, a temporary ceasefire regime between Israel and Hamas had been agreed upon, and Trump presented himself as a peacemaker. His jokes and rhetorical questions energized the audience, but also generated new suspicions regarding the transparency of the decisions being made.
Reaction of Public Organizations and Experts
Immediately after Trump’s speech, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) issued a statement condemning such close ties between politicians and private donors. In a comment to Casino.org, CAIR representatives noted: “We welcome Trump’s candor in openly acknowledging the level of influence Miriam Adelson has on policy. We urge all U.S. politicians to refuse support from donors who place the interests of a foreign state above national ones.”
CAIR’s primary mission is to protect the interests of American Muslims and to combat discrimination and double standards. The council actively responds to any manifestations of interference in U.S. politics by foreign lobbyists. According to experts, such statements reflect growing public concern about the transparency of the political process.
The Debate Over Donor Influence and Possible Consequences
Public anxiety is increasing over whose hands hold the levers of control over foreign policy. Some experts argue that donations are a way of exercising civic engagement and supporting chosen politicians. Others see this as a threat to national interests and a risk of substituting public demand with private interests.
Where is the line between lawful support for a candidate and manipulation of foreign policy? What measures can prevent conflicts of interest between donors and state institutions? There are still no clear answers to these questions. Discussions of lobbying, donor ethics, and the influence of capital are becoming increasingly intense amid global challenges.
Similar mechanisms of influence also exist in less large-scale but no less illustrative forms, including in the gambling sector. In various countries, politicians and government officials often receive financial support from the gambling business, including casino owners and online platform operators. In return, such industries expect favorable regulation: license extensions, relaxed requirements, more lenient tax legislation, or delays in restrictive measures. Formally, such relationships fall within the bounds of the law, yet they increasingly become the subject of public debate about conflicts of interest and the transparency of decision-making.
Against this backdrop, it is hardly surprising that the gambling industry is developing not only in offline formats but also in the digital sphere, where state oversight is often weaker. Online casinos and live games attract audiences through mobility and ease of access, while the projects themselves quickly build up an ecosystem of apps and services. For example, through FunkyTimeGame.org Apps, users can download Funky Time applications and play in a live show format directly from a smartphone, without being tied to physical casinos or a specific location.
In a broader context, this once again brings the discussion back to the core issue: the influence of capital—whether from major political donors or the gambling industry—gradually permeates various spheres of public life. That is why questions of transparency, regulation, and public oversight are becoming increasingly relevant, regardless of whether the issue concerns foreign policy, domestic legislation, or the entertainment industry.
Context and Explanations for a Broad Audience
The Knesset is Israel’s parliament and the country’s highest legislative body. The relocation of the American embassy to Jerusalem was perceived as a historic victory for Israeli diplomacy; it signified the official recognition of the city as the capital. For the United States, this step became the subject of sharp criticism from other Middle Eastern countries as well as allies in the European Union.
World history has seen other instances in which major donors, such as George Soros or the Koch brothers, exerted notable influence on politics by financing campaigns, think tanks, or media outlets. The Adelson case only underscores that such practices have become universal, while questions of transparency remain unresolved.
Who determines strategic foreign policy decisions—presidents, parliaments, or shadow donors with their own preferences? Do parallels arise with other countries where political elites are closely intertwined with big capital? Behind the façade of philanthropy often lie complex mechanisms of influence that require public oversight and reflection.
During
a speech in the Knesset, Donald Trump unexpectedly pointed to the
special role of Miriam Adelson in shaping U.S.–Israel relations.
His remarks addressed not only the well-known philanthropist herself,
but also a broader issue: how significant is the influence of private
donors on a country’s foreign policy becoming? Society once again
turns its attention to the boundaries of what is acceptable in the
alliance between politics and big capital.Who Is Miriam Adelson and
Why She Receives So Much AttentionDr. Miriam Adelson is a
physician, scientist, and millionaire of Jewish origin, born in
Israel and living in the United States for many years. She actively
supports educational, medical, and cultural
projects related to Jewish and Israeli identity, as well as programs
aimed at combating drug addiction. Her foundation finances
scholarships, memorials, and medical research.Miriam Adelson is known for
having continued her late husband’s political course after the
death of Sheldon Adelson, a businessman and the founder of the casino
company Las Vegas Sands, by maintaining strong support for the U.S.
Republican Party. Over recent decades, the Adelson family has donated
hundreds of millions of dollars to election campaigns, becoming one
of the leading donors to the conservative wing of American politics.
It is precisely the scale of her influence and her close contacts
with the Trump administration that draw particular interest from
experts and observers.How Miriam and Sheldon
Adelson Influenced U.S. Decisions on IsraelA series of cases is widely
discussed in which funding from the Adelson family coincided with
major political decisions made by the White House. Among the most
prominent examples is the relocation of the U.S. embassy from Tel
Aviv to Jerusalem in 2018. According to reports by Reuters and The
New York Times, this move was actively lobbied by Adelson and her
circle, and the opening ceremony itself took place in the personal
presence of the philanthropists.In addition, Miriam Adelson
has repeatedly been honored for her philanthropy and support of
Israeli military organizations. In 2018, Trump awarded her the
Presidential Medal of Freedom, one of the highest state honors in the
United States. It is known that Adelson regularly visited the White
House and maintained personal contact with the president on key
issues.The term “major donor”
in this context refers to an individual or organization that
contributes substantial sums to the campaigns of politicians or
political parties. Lobbying is the activity of promoting the
interests of private entities through lawful mechanisms of influence
on those in power.What Donald Trump Said and
Why His Words Caused a StirDuring his speech, broadcast
on Israeli and American channels, Trump stated: “Every president
for decades said they would move the embassy to Jerusalem, but I got
it done. Right, Miriam? Look, here’s Miriam—stand up, Miriam.”Trump then spoke about how
the Adelson couple frequently visited his office and actively
participated in discussions on issues related to Israel. He added: “I
once asked Miriam: which do you love more—Israel or the United
States? She didn’t answer. Maybe it’s Israel.” These remarks
became the subject of heated debate: can a donor with such priorities
be considered capable of influencing U.S. foreign policy?The context of the speech
intensified the overall atmosphere—on the eve of the address, a
temporary ceasefire regime between Israel and Hamas had been agreed
upon, and Trump presented himself as a peacemaker. His jokes and
rhetorical questions energized the audience, but also generated new
suspicions regarding the transparency of the decisions being made.Reaction of Public
Organizations and ExpertsImmediately after Trump’s
speech, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) issued a
statement condemning such close ties between politicians and private
donors. In a comment to Casino.org, CAIR representatives noted: “We
welcome Trump’s candor in openly acknowledging the level of
influence Miriam Adelson has on policy. We urge all U.S. politicians
to refuse support from donors who place the interests of a foreign
state above national ones.”CAIR’s primary mission is
to protect the interests of American Muslims and to combat
discrimination and double standards. The council actively responds to
any manifestations of interference in U.S. politics by foreign
lobbyists. According to experts, such statements reflect growing
public concern about the transparency of the political process.The Debate Over Donor
Influence and Possible ConsequencesPublic anxiety is increasing
over whose hands hold the levers of control over foreign policy. Some
experts argue that donations are a way of exercising civic engagement
and supporting chosen politicians. Others see this as a threat to
national interests and a risk of substituting public demand with
private interests.Where is the line between
lawful support for a candidate and manipulation of foreign policy?
What measures can prevent conflicts of interest between donors and
state institutions? There are still no clear answers to these
questions. Discussions of lobbying, donor ethics, and the influence
of capital are becoming increasingly intense amid global challenges.Similar mechanisms of
influence also exist in less large-scale but no less illustrative
forms, including in the gambling sector. In various countries,
politicians and government officials often receive financial support
from the gambling business, including casino owners and online
platform operators. In return, such industries expect favorable
regulation: license extensions, relaxed requirements, more lenient
tax legislation, or delays in restrictive measures. Formally, such
relationships fall within the bounds of the law, yet they
increasingly become the subject of public debate about conflicts of
interest and the transparency of decision-making.Against this backdrop, it is
hardly surprising that the gambling industry is developing not only
in offline formats but also in the digital sphere, where state
oversight is often weaker. Online casinos and live games attract
audiences through mobility and ease of access, while the projects
themselves quickly build up an ecosystem of apps and services. For
example, through FunkyTimeGame.org
Apps, users can download Funky Time applications and play in a
live show format directly from a smartphone, without being tied to
physical casinos or a specific location.In a broader context, this
once again brings the discussion back to the core issue: the
influence of capital—whether from major political donors or the
gambling industry—gradually permeates various spheres of public
life. That is why questions of transparency, regulation, and public
oversight are becoming increasingly relevant, regardless of whether
the issue concerns foreign policy, domestic legislation, or the
entertainment industry.Context and Explanations for
a Broad AudienceThe Knesset is Israel’s
parliament and the country’s highest legislative body. The
relocation of the American embassy to Jerusalem was perceived as a
historic victory for Israeli diplomacy; it signified the official
recognition of the city as the capital. For the United States, this
step became the subject of sharp criticism from other Middle Eastern
countries as well as allies in the European Union.World history has seen other
instances in which major donors, such as George Soros or the Koch
brothers, exerted notable influence on politics by financing
campaigns, think tanks, or media outlets. The Adelson case only
underscores that such practices have become universal, while
questions of transparency remain unresolved.Who determines strategic
foreign policy decisions—presidents, parliaments, or shadow donors
with their own preferences? Do parallels arise with other countries
where political elites are closely intertwined with big capital?
Behind the façade of philanthropy often lie complex mechanisms of
influence that require public oversight and reflection.
Features
So, what’s the deal with the honey scene in ‘Marty Supreme?’
By Olivia Haynie December 29, 2025 This story was originally published in the Forward. Click here to get the Forward’s free email newsletters delivered to your inbox.
There are a lot of jarring scenes in Marty Supreme, Josh Safdie’s movie about a young Jew in the 1950s willing to do anything to secure his spot in table tennis history. There’s the one where Marty (Timothée Chalamet) gets spanked with a ping-pong paddle; there’s the one where a gas station explodes. And the one where Marty, naked in a bathtub, falls through the floor of a cheap motel. But the one that everybody online seems to be talking about is a flashback of an Auschwitz story told by Marty’s friend and fellow ping-ponger Béla Kletzki (Géza Röhrig, best known for his role as a Sonderkommando in Son of Saul).
Kletzki tells the unsympathetic ink tycoon Milton Rockwell (Kevin O’Leary) about how the Nazis, impressed by his table tennis skills, spared his life and recruited him to disarm bombs. One day, while grappling with a bomb in the woods, Kletzki stumbled across a honeycomb. He smeared the honey across his body and returned to the camp, where he let his fellow prisoners lick it off his body. The scene is a sensory nightmare, primarily shot in close-ups of wet tongues licking sticky honey off Kletzki’s hairy body. For some, it was also … funny?
Many have reported that the scene has been triggering a lot of laughter in their theaters. My audience in Wilmington, North Carolina, certainly had a good chuckle — with the exception of my mother, who instantly started sobbing. I sat in stunned silence, unsure at first what to make of the sharp turn the film had suddenly taken. One post on X that got nearly 6,000 likes admonished Safdie for his “insane Holocaust joke.” Many users replied that the scene was in no way meant to be funny, with one even calling it “the most sincere scene in the whole movie.”
For me, the scene shows the sheer desperation of those in the concentration camps, as well as the self-sacrifice that was essential to survival. And yet many have interpreted it as merely shock humor.
Laughter could be understood as an inevitable reaction to discomfort and shock at a scene that feels so out of place in what has, up to that point, been a pretty comedic film. The story is sandwiched between Marty’s humorous attempts to embarrass Rockwell and seduce his wife. Viewers may have mistaken the scene as a joke since the film’s opening credits sequence of sperm swimming through fallopian tubes gives the impression you will be watching a comedy interspersed with some tense ping-pong playing.
The reaction could also be part of what some in the movie theater industry are calling the “laugh epidemic.” In The New York Times, Marie Solis explored the inappropriate laughter in movie theaters that seems to be increasingly common. The rise of meme culture and the dissolution of clear genres (Marty Supreme could be categorized as somewhere between drama and comedy), she writes, have primed audiences to laugh at moments that may not have been meant to be funny.
The audience’s inability to process the honey scene as sincere may also be a sign of a society that has become more disconnected from the traumas of the past. It would not be the first time that people, unable to comprehend the horrors of the Holocaust, have instead derided the tales of abuse as pure fiction. But Kletzki’s story is based on the real experiences of Alojzy Ehrlich, a ping-pong player imprisoned at Auschwitz. The scene is not supposed to be humorous trauma porn — Safdie has called it a “beautiful story” about the “camaraderie” found within the camps. It also serves as an important reminder of all that Marty is fighting for.
The events of the film take place only seven years after the Holocaust, and the macabre honey imagery encapsulates the dehumanization the Jews experienced. Marty is motivated not just by a desire to prove himself as an athlete and rise above what his uncle and mother expect of him, but above what the world expects of him as a Jew. His drive to reclaim Jewish pride is further underscored when he brings back a piece of an Egyptian pyramid to his mother, telling her, “We built this.”
Without understanding this background, the honey scene will come off as out of place and ridiculous. And the lengths Marty is willing to go to to make something of himself cannot be fully appreciated. The film’s description on the review-app Letterboxd says Marty Supreme is about one man who “goes to hell and back in pursuit of greatness.” But behind Marty is the story of a whole people who have gone through hell; they too are trying to find their way back.
Olivia Haynie is an editorial fellow at the Forward.
This story was originally published on the Forward.
Features
Paghahambing ng One-on-One Matches at Multiplayer Challenges sa Pusoy in English
Ang Pusoy, na kilala din bilang Chinese Poker, ay patuloy na sumisikat sa buong mundo, kumukuha ng interes ng mga manlalaro mula sa iba’t ibang bansa. Ang mga online platforms ay nagpapadali sa pag-access nito. Ang online version nito ay lubos na nagpasigla ng interes sa mga baguhan at casual players, na nagdulot ng diskusyon kung alin ang mas madali: ang paglalaro ng Pusoy one-on-one o sa multiplayer settings.
Habang nailipat sa digital platforms ang Pusoy, napakahalaga na maunawaan ang mga format nito upang mapahusay ang karanasan sa laro. Malaking epekto ang bilang ng mga kalaban pagdating sa istilo ng laro, antas ng kahirapan, at ang ganap na gameplay dynamics. Ang mga platforms tulad ng GameZone ay nagbibigay ng angkop na espasyo para sa mga manlalaro na masubukan ang parehong one-on-one at multiplayer Pusoy, na akma para sa iba’t ibang klase ng players depende sa kanilang kasanayan at kagustuhan.
Mga Bentahe ng One-on-One Pusoy
Simpleng Gameplay
Sa one-on-one Pusoy in English, dalawa lang ang naglalaban—isang manlalaro at isang kalaban. Dahil dito, mas madali ang bawat laban. Ang pokus ng mga manlalaro ay nakatuon lamang sa kanilang sariling 13 cards at sa mga galaw ng kalaban, kaya’t nababawasan ang pagiging komplikado.
Para sa mga baguhan, ideal ang one-on-one matches upang:
- Sanayin ang tamang pagsasaayos ng cards.
- Matutunan ang tamang ranggo ng bawat kamay.
- Magsanay na maiwasan ang mag-foul sa laro.
Ang simpleng gameplay ay nagbibigay ng matibay na pundasyon para sa mas kumplikadong karanasan sa multiplayer matches.
Mga Estratehiya mula sa Pagmamasid
Sa one-on-one matches, mas madaling maunawaan ang istilo ng kalaban dahil limitado lamang ang galaw na kailangan sundan. Maaari mong obserbahan ang mga sumusunod na patterns:
- Konserbatibong pagkakaayos o agresibong strategy.
- Madalas na pagkakamali o overconfidence.
- Labis na pagtuon sa isang grupo ng cards.
Dahil dito, nagkakaroon ng pagkakataon ang mga manlalaro na isaayos ang kanilang estratehiya upang mas epektibong maka-responde sa galaw ng kalaban, partikular kung maglalaro sa competitive platforms tulad ng GameZone.
Mas Mababang Pressure
Dahil one-on-one lamang ang laban, mababawasan ang mental at emotional stress. Walang ibang kalaban na makaka-distract, na nagbibigay ng pagkakataon para sa mga baguhan na matuto nang walang matinding parusa sa kanilang mga pagkakamali. Nagiging stepping stone ito patungo sa mas dynamic na multiplayer matches.
Ang Hamon ng Multiplayer Pusoy
Mas Komplikado at Mas Malalim na Gameplay
Sa Multiplayer Pusoy, madaragdagan ang bilang ng kalaban, kaya mas nagiging komplikado ang laro. Kailangan kalkulahin ng bawat manlalaro ang galaw ng maraming tao at ang pagkakaayos nila ng cards.
Ang ilang hamon ng multiplayer ay:
- Pagbabalanse ng lakas ng cards sa tatlong grupo.
- Pag-iwas sa labis na peligro habang nagiging kompetitibo.
- Pagtatagumpayan ang lahat ng kalaban nang sabay-sabay.
Ang ganitong klase ng gameplay ay nangangailangan ng maingat na pagpaplano, prediksyon, at strategic na pasensiya.
Mas Malakas na Mental Pressure
Mas mataas ang psychological demand sa multiplayer, dahil mabilis ang galawan at mas mahirap manatiling kalmado sa gitna ng mas maraming kalaban. Kabilang dito ang:
- Bilisan ang pagdedesisyon kahit under pressure.
- Paano mananatiling focused sa gitna ng mga distractions.
- Pagkakaroon ng emosyonal na kontrol matapos ang sunod-sunod na talo.
Mas exciting ito para sa mga manlalarong gusto ng matinding hamon at pagmamalasakit sa estratehiya.
GameZone: Ang Bagong Tahanan ng Modern Pusoy
Ang GameZone online ay isang kahanga-hangang platform para sa mga naglalaro ng Pusoy in English. Nagbibigay ito ng opsyon para sa parehong one-on-one at multiplayer matches, akma para sa kahit anong antas ng kasanayan.
Mga feature ng GameZone:
- Madaling English interface para sa user-friendly na gameplay.
- Real-player matches imbes na kalaban ay bots.
- Mga tool para sa responsible play, tulad ng time reminder at spending limits.
Pagtatagal ng Pamanang Pusoy
Ang Pusoy card game in English ay nagpalawak ng abot nito sa mas maraming players mula sa iba’t ibang bahagi ng mundo habang pinapanatili ang tradisyunal nitong charm. Sa pamamagitan ng mga modernong platform tulad ng GameZone, mananatiling buhay at progresibo ang Pusoy, nakakabighani pa rin sa lahat ng antas ng manlalaro—mula sa casual enjoyment hanggang sa competitive challenges.
Mula sa maingat na pag-aayos ng mga cards hanggang sa pag-master ng estratehiya, ang Pusoy ay isang laro na nananatiling relevant habang ipinapakita ang masalimuot nitong gameplay dynamics na puno ng kultura at inobasyon.
Features
Rob Reiner asked the big questions. His death leaves us searching for answers.
Can men and women just be friends? Can you be in the revenge business too long? Why don’t you just make 10 louder and have that be the top number on your amp?
All are questions Rob Reiner sought to answer. In the wake of his and his wife’s unexpected deaths, which are being investigated as homicides, it’s hard not to reel with questions of our own: How could someone so beloved come to such a senseless end? How can we account for such a staggering loss to the culture when it came so prematurely? How can we juggle that grief and our horror over the violent murder of Jews at an Australian beach, gathered to celebrate the first night of Hanukkah, and still light candles of our own?
The act of asking may be a way forward, just as Rob Reiner first emerged from sitcom stardom by making inquiries.
In This is Spinal Tap, his first feature, he played the role of Marty DiBergi, the in-universe director of the documentary about the misbegotten 1982 U.S. concert tour of the eponymous metal band. He was, in a sense, culminating the work of his father, Carl Reiner, who launched a classic comedy record as the interviewer of Mel Brooks’ 2,000 Year Old Man. DiBergi as played by Reiner was a reverential interlocutor — one might say a fanboy — but he did take time to query Nigel Tufnell as to why his amp went to 11. And, quoting a bad review, he asked “What day did the Lord create Spinal Tap, and couldn’t he have rested on that day too?”
But Reiner had larger questions to mull over. And in this capacity — not just his iconic scene at Katz’s Deli in When Harry Met Sally or the goblin Yiddishkeit of Miracle Max in The Princess Bride — he was a fundamentally Jewish director.
Stand By Me is a poignant meditation on death through the eyes of childhood — it asks what we remember and how those early experiences shape us. The Princess Bride is a storybook consideration of love — it wonders at the price of seeking or avenging it at all costs. A Few Good Men is a trenchant, cynical-for-Aaron Sorkin, inquest of abuse in the military — how can it happen in an atmosphere of discipline.
In his public life, Reiner was an activist. He asked how he could end cigarette smoking. He asked why gay couples couldn’t marry like straight ones. He asked what Russia may have had on President Trump. This fall, with the FCC’s crackdown on Jimmy Kimmel, he asked if he would soon be censored. He led with the Jewish question of how the world might be repaired.
Guttingly, in perhaps his most personal project, 2015’s Being Charlie, co-written by his son Nick he wondered how a parent can help a child struggling with addiction. (Nick was questioned by the LAPD concerning his parents’ deaths and was placed under arrest.)
Related
None of the questions had pat answers. Taken together, there’s scarcely a part of life that Reiner’s filmography overlooked, including the best way to end it, in 2007’s The Bucket List.
Judging by the longevity of his parents, both of whom lived into their 90s, it’s entirely possible Reiner had much more to ask of the world. That we won’t get to see another film by him, or spot him on the news weighing in on the latest democratic aberration, is hard to swallow.
Yet there is some small comfort in the note Reiner went out on. In October, he unveiled Spinal Tap II: The Beginning of the End, a valedictory moment in a long and celebrated career.
Reiner once again returned to the role of DiBergi. I saw a special prescreening with a live Q&A after the film. It was the day Charlie Kirk was assassinated. I half-expected Reiner to break character and address political violence — his previous film, God & Country, was a documentary on Christian Nationalism.
But Reiner never showed up — only Marty DiBergi, sitting with Nigel Tuffnell (Christopher Guest), David St. Hubbins (Michael McKean) and Derek Smalls (Harry Shearer) at Grauman’s Chinese Theater in Los Angeles. The interview was broadcast to theaters across the country, with viewer-submitted questions like “What, in fact, did the glove from Smell the Glove smell like?” (Minty.) And “Who was the inspiration for ‘Big Bottom?’” (Della Reese.)
Related
- Actor-Director Rob Reiner dies at 78
- Carl Reiner On Judaism, Atheism And The ‘Monster’ In The White House
- Mandy Patinkin On His Favorite ‘Princess Bride’ Quote
DiBergi had one question for the audience: “How did you feel about the film?”
The applause was rapturous, but DiBergi still couldn’t get over Nigel Tuffnell’s Marshall amp, which now stretched beyond 11 and into infinity.
“How can that be?” he asked. “How can you go to infinity? How loud is that?”
There’s no limit, Tuffnell assured him. “Why should there be a limit?”
Reiner, an artist of boundless curiosity and humanity, was limitless. His remit was to reason why. He’ll be impossible to replace, but in asking difficult questions, we can honor him.
The post Rob Reiner asked the big questions. His death leaves us searching for answers. appeared first on The Forward.